Problems With Evolution

[silkworm]

Here's my first draft for the introduction and conclusion of the letter. Please excuse formatting issues and the blanks at the end, as I'm not sure specifically where each will go.

 

To the Institute for Creation Research (ICR)' date=' christiananswers.net, and creationists.org,

 

This letter is written to inform you of errors in the scientific content presented in the video “A Question of Origins.” This video can be found via christianswers.net at this url: http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/aqoo/home.html, at creationists.org at this url:http://creationists.org/aquestionoforigins.html, and is for sale through ICR at this url: http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=2634. It was available at all three sites as recently as the writing of this letter in April 2006.

 

In a thread at scienceforums.net (SFN), a link to this video was posted by a member as a scientific argument in support for the creation stories of Genesis/Intelligent Design (ID). “A Question of Origins” itself attempts to present accepted, established science in order to criticize it. It was to the disappointment of members of the SFN community, the writers of this letter, and the supporters of this letter, who are other students of science and active scientists, that much of what was presented in “A Question of Origins” as textbook science, science as generally accepted by the scientific community, is in fact not.

 

We at SFN and the other endorsers of this letter hope that you at ICR, christiananswers.net, and creationists.org, would not conduct yourselves dishonestly. We have reviewed “A Question of Origins,” and have found many misrepresentations of accepted science, and have written this letter, in good faith, to inform you that you are supporting misinformation by distributing this video.

 

Here we have made a list, organized by chapter, of misrepresented science in “A Question of Origins,” along with an explaination of what is accepted science in each particular case, complete with sources with supporting information. It is our hope that you will review this information and take action to remedy this situation. You will see from our list, that due to the problems with the content of “A Question of Origins,” to knowingly endorse the video, which misrepresents the views of the scientific community, would be an exercise in dishonesty.[/quote']

 

Conclusion:

 

We in the scientific community do not appreciate having incorrect words put into our mouths' date=' and we do not condone innacurate representations of textbook science. We realize that nothing is perfect and mistakes are made, but the errors in the content of “A Question of Origins” are so numerous and profound that they must be addressed. We hope that you at ICR, christiananswers.net, and creationists.org, also do not condone lies and will do the right thing to remedy this situation.

 

We at SFN feel the right thing to do would be to:

 

1.Apologize to the scientific community and to the supporters of creation science and ID for making this very flawed video available, and state that you do not endorse its misrepresentations of the scientific community.

 

2.Take “A Question of Origins” offline and promise to not make it available in any format in the future.

 

3.Discontinue selling the video and refund any and all sales you have made for “A Question of Origins.”

 

To get the word out about “A Question of Origins,” and to give you an opportunity to address this situation publicly we have posted this letter at: ____ , and have posted links to the letter in many scientific forums, as well as forums dedicated to creation science and ID. You can reach the writers of this letter at ___, and we will be happy to add your responses to this letter.

 

We anticipate your response and know that you will do the right thing,

 

The writers from SFN,

 

Brock Rhodes

Undergrad: Chemistry

Wichita State University

 

(And All Writers Signatures in this section:)

 

(In this section:)

Supporters of this letter in the scientific community include:[/quote']

 

Note: I feel that it is best that approach this by only pointing out misrepresentations of accepted, textbook science. We leave religion and their assumptions of the world based on Biblical readings out of it. We should respect them as christians if we hope for them to respect us as scientists.

[ydoaPs]

we have supporters in the scientific community?

[silkworm]

I can think of 3 off of the top of my head. I'm sure we'll have more.

[silkworm]

Cap'n, I'm a net spaz. Is there any way we can get the entire thing on one page so that there is no chance for confusion? I'm mainly concerned about the conclusion being on there as well.

 

And Cap'n and Dak, I seriously need your help with the Wiki Site. Somehow the edit link has disappeared for the intro and I can't pretty it up. I have no idea what I'm doing.

[Dak]

what do you mean?

 

[edit] ah, i see. fixed

 

The intro (and edit link) are below the table of contents now

 

[/edit]

[herme3]

Of course, there are facts within those theories that will likely be addressed, and should be addressed as such, but that can be done tactfully I think.

 

I agree. Anything in the theories that can be proven without a doubt should be presented as facts. We just need to make sure that we provide plenty of references to scientific evidence that can't be denied. If something is true, we need to make sure that we provide proof it is true.

 

If something can't be proven, it should be presented as a theory or belief. For example, if the video said something like, "Evolution says a reptile evolved into a bird in one generation" we should correct them by saying something like, "It is the belief of evolutionists that reptiles gradually evolved into birds over many generations." Then we won't be telling them what to believe, we will just be telling them what the theory actually says.

 

Here's my first draft for the introduction and conclusion of the letter...

 

Most of your draft looks good, but I would be careful not to accuse them of being dishonest. I don't think this letter should accuse them of doing anything wrong on purpose. Instead of saying they are "dishonest" or "misrepresenting", I think we should say they are "misinformed". I would say that they seem to misunderstand the facts, instead of saying that they are lying.

 

I would recommend that they apologize for the false information in the video regarding proven facts, or what the theories actually say. I would also recommend that they either remove the video, or make corrections to the video and remove any false information. However, I'm not sure if refunding everyone would be such a great suggestion. The people who sell this video probably aren't directly responsible for making any false statements. Also, most Christian companies donate a lot of their profits to charitable organizations. I would feel differently if this was a major commercial publisher, but I'm not sure if requesting refunds would be a good idea in this circumstance.

 

I also think we need to add a paragraph to show that this letter wasn't made to criticize or change Christian beliefs. Show them that we aren't trying to say anything against creationism, but we are only trying to correct any false statements made about evolution. I would suggest a paragraph like this:

 

I hope you understand that we are not trying to disrespect or change your beliefs. We are only trying to correct your misunderstanding of evolutionist beliefs. You have every right to openly criticize the theories of evolution, abiogenesis, or the big bang. We only ask that you present these theories in a way that is truthful and scientifically accurate.

[silkworm]

I have no idea how to edit WiSci stuff. Anyway, I've written a draft for intro and conclusion and they are now here and on that page. Let me know what you think.

[silkworm]

Most of your draft looks good' date=' but I would be careful not to accuse them of being dishonest. I don't think this letter should accuse them of doing anything wrong on purpose. Instead of saying they are "dishonest" or "misrepresenting", I think we should say they are "misinformed". I would say that they seem to misunderstand the facts, instead of saying that they are lying.

 

I would recommend that they apologize for the false information in the video regarding proven facts, or what the theories actually say. I would also recommend that they either remove the video, or make corrections to the video and remove any false information. However, I'm not sure if refunding everyone would be such a great suggestion. The people who sell this video probably aren't directly responsible for making any false statements. Also, most Christian companies donate a lot of their profits to charitable organizations. I would feel differently if this was a major commercial publisher, but I'm not sure if requesting refunds would be a good idea in this circumstance.

 

I also think we need to add a paragraph to show that this letter wasn't made to criticize or change Christian beliefs. Show them that we aren't trying to say anything against creationism, but we are only trying to correct any false statements made about evolution. I would suggest a paragraph like this:[/quote']

 

Herme3, the flaws in this video are so deep that to endorse them, either by neglect or on purpose, is participation in a lie. We're giving them the benefit of the doubt that what they have done up to this point has not been intentional, but soon they will know and must take action to correct their mistakes. Nothing in this letter will attack christian beliefs, or even address religion. The point of the letter is to point out that this video is SERIOUSLY false, and misrepresents the views of the scientific community.

 

I can not say "misinformed" because I can't speak for the intention or the knowledge of the producers of this video. I can however speak about the content of this video and what it does, misrepresents science.

 

A refund is in order. The buyers of this video were apparantly searching for scientific validation for their beliefs and they were misinformed by misrepresented scientific information. They obtained the video by the organizations that the letter is addressed to, and these organizations should take responsibility for their product. It's the right thing to do.

[herme3]

A refund is in order. The buyers of this video were apparantly searching for scientific validation for their beliefs and they were misinformed by misrepresented scientific information. They obtained the video by the organizations that the letter is addressed to, and these organizations should take responsibility for their product. It's the right thing to do.

 

Of course they are going to need to correct their mistakes. Nobody should ever criticize other beliefs or opinions by using false information. I'm also in full support of requesting that they inform everyone of all the incorrect information presented in this video. However, I'm not sure if they are financially capable of making the refunds. It says on the Christian Answers web site that they are non-profit and rely on donations. If so, the cost of the DVD and videos probably went to manufacturing and shipping them. Since it will probably be impossible for them to get this money back, I'm not sure if asking them to give refunds would do any good.

[silkworm]

We need a good Big Bang guy to really look at chapter 1.

 

Here are 2 of the statements implied to be generally accepted among the scientific community.

 

“In the beginning, there was nothing. A vacuum, void, empty space.”

 

“And in this empty space emerged a primordial fireball. Billions of years ago this fireball exploded.”

 

It then goes on and makes statements about matter formation which I can't go into right now.

 

Who's a Big Banger?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'll take a look at it, as I know some about the Big Bang and such.

[jeskill]

From what I read, the site looks great. I'm unable to participate due to essays and exams and whatnot, but I just wanted to lend my support to this endeavor.

 

Is it kosher if I sign the letter without actually participating the in formation of the letter?

[silkworm]

Is it kosher if I sign the letter without actually participating the in formation of the letter?

 

Please do, and this letter doesn't have to be time consuming. We are focusing only on misrepresentations of generally accepted science. If you have a moment, please review the area of science you know most about and at least give us comments about what is inaccurate so we can include it. Correspondingly, if you see anything on the working page that may be inaccurate please let us know.

 

I would like everyone who agrees with its content to sign it. As soon as it starts shaping up I'll start presenting it to as many working scientists as I can and we'll post it and send it as soon as it's perfect.

[Red_Ninja]

I really, really, cannot understand why people choose to attack evolution in favour of religious ideas. They do not seem to understand that while they keep their views in the area of religion, they're safe. Because it's 'faith' and not based on evidence, nobody has a problem with them believing everything they want to. But instead, they attempt to attack evolution as a science because it disagrees with a very old book that for some reason is taken by many (particularly in the US) as a _literal_ truth. Catholicism is excepted from this as it has stated plenty of times that evolution is not incompatible with christianity.

 

The point I'm getting at is this: if these people attempt to put their faith into an arena where it can undergo critical analysis, it will be ripped to shreds and anger will ensue on all sides. They are in danger of destroying their faith altogether by subjecting it to the same scrutiny under which evolution is subject, and it obviously will not hold up. My personal opinon is that they should shut the hell up and leave science to the scientists.

 

One thing that particularly tics my anger is the tendency of these groups to use deliberately fallacious arguments. They know that these arguments will fool many religious lay-people, who will watch these kinds of presentation and think "ah - scientific evidence for my faith! wonderful".

 

Hasn't the general population wondered why the vast majority of 'opponents' and 'dissenting voices' to evolution are right wing fundamentalist christans ? i.e. those very people who have a lot to gain from calling evolution into question ? Look at the link from the OP - christiananswers.net - says it all.

 

The general consensus seems to be that evolution and a belief in god (however abstract) are mutually exclusive. This could only, amusingly, be down to the prejudices about god in believers. Could god create a universe over 15 billion years old, create physical laws that allow earth to accrete and life to assume the myriad forms it has without further intervention ? Not according to them. It has to be a case of clicking your divine fingers and everything appearing. A distinct lack of imagination.

 

Anyways sorry for writing a book, I don't post often, more of a lurker.

[silkworm]

One thing that particularly tics my anger is the tendency of these groups to use deliberately fallacious arguments.

 

We're leaving religion out of it, and only correcting misinformation by showing what is generally accepted in the scientific community. Are you in?

[Prime-Evil]

I have solved all the potential problems with evolution to my satisfaction.

The difficulty is in convincing women that I am right.

[sunspot]

I beleive the evolutionary model is correct in theory, that simpler things evolve into more complex things and that selective adaptation gives it a better foothold leading to further progression. The model seems sound, but the data is not as continuous as one would hope. Fossil evidence is sparse considering we have less than .001% (estimate) of the actual animals from anytime in distant history.

 

If I decided to formulate a theory of the evolution of Joe's morning routine from the time he gets up and goes to work, I know there is a logical progression. But if all I had for data was some clothes on a chair and piece of burnt toast, I would have a lot of liberty coming up with possible logical scenarios. I would also use my own biases for getting ready in the morning to fill in the blanks. I believe in the progressive structure but not the random stuff. Joe probably selectively adapted his routine to help him maximize effeciency so even on off days he continues to evolve to work. That is where hydrogen bonding come in.

 

The random DNA leading to selective evolution is too convenient. It allow one to fill in any gap without data. If one needs something, puff, it can randonly appear. That sounds like hockus pockus to me.

[zyncod]

PLEASE READ MY POST BEFORE REPLYING TO IT

 

Hell no!

 

Sorry, but this is pseudoscience, so we don't have to be as rigorous here.

[silkworm]

Sorry, but this is pseudoscience, so we don't have to be as rigorous here.

 

Are you responding to the nature of forums or about what is going on in the letter?

 

If you're talking about the content of the video, I think we, and by we I mean everyone independent of their views, deserve to not have information falsely represented to us. There is accepted, textbook science, and we can check on that. What is being presented in that video as accepted science is not, that's what we are addressing.

[herme3]

I really' date=' really, cannot understand why people choose to attack evolution in favour of religious ideas. They do not seem to understand that while they keep their views in the area of religion, they're safe. Because it's 'faith' and not based on evidence, nobody has a problem with them believing everything they want to. But instead, they attempt to attack evolution as a science because it disagrees with a very old book that for some reason is taken by many (particularly in the US) as a _literal_ truth. Catholicism is excepted from this as it has stated plenty of times that evolution is not incompatible with christianity.

 

The point I'm getting at is this: if these people attempt to put their faith into an arena where it can undergo critical analysis, it will be ripped to shreds and anger will ensue on all sides. They are in danger of destroying their faith altogether by subjecting it to the same scrutiny under which evolution is subject, and it obviously will not hold up. My personal opinon is that they should shut the hell up and leave science to the scientists.[/quote']

 

I am a Christian, but I also believe in proven scientific evidence. I have nothing against scientific research into Christian beliefs. If my beliefs are true, science will never be able to prove they are false. If my beliefs are false, I would like to know it and see the proof. I have yet to find scientific evidence against the existence of God. However, if such evidence does happen to exist, why would Christians be against it? Why would anyone want to practice a religion that is known to be false? It would make no sense.

 

It would be like someone telling me that there is an explosive device in my house. Yes, I'm going to get out of my house as quickly as I can. However, I will also want the police or some other experts to come and investigate. If they can prove to me that there is no explosive device, I would go back inside. Why would I waste me time standing outside for no reason? I think the same is true for religion.

 

If I used the example above, some scientists would be like the police if they never went inside to investigate, but they just came and said, "It could just be a prank. You can go back inside." Just because science can provide an alternative theory to creationism doesn't mean that creationism is false. I have been taught the Christian religion, and I will continue to practice it unless scientific proof shows that I am wasting my time. I don't want to die and wake up to see the Devil, and then hear Charles Darwin say, "Oops. Sorry everyone."

[silkworm]

I am a Christian' date=' but I also believe in proven scientific evidence. I have nothing against scientific research into Christian beliefs. If my beliefs are true, science will never be able to prove they are false. If my beliefs are false, I would like to know it and see the proof. I have yet to find scientific evidence against the existence of God. However, if such evidence does happen to exist, why would Christians be against it? Why would anyone want to practice a religion that is known to be false? It would make no sense.[/quote']

 

I see what you're saying here and I can relate. But the fact is, science does not care whether or not God exists. Evolution does not have any sort of answer whether or not there was a creator to the universe, and it doesn't even care about the origin of the universe. The Big Bang Theory doesn't even comment on whether or not there was a creator to the universe. They are both models of how everything appears to have happened based on the data we have.

 

Science does not exist to validate religion, science exists to understand the nature. Its limits are nature, and it is composed of models that we have built through our experiments and oberservations.

 

If you're using science to validate your religion you are using it inappropriately. An analogy would be using a fork to carry a gallon of water. It just doesn't work.

 

Science and religion have absolutely nothing to do with one another. They are incompatable and should be held seperate. One is based in experimentation, the other is based in faith. One is the study of the natural world, the other is belief in supernatural beings. They have nothing to do with each other.

 

It also should be noted that the Theory of Evolution did not begin or end with Charles Darwin. Darwin simply found a mechanism to evolution. And since the time of Darwin the Theory of Evolution has been significantly confirmed and refined, just like all cherished scientific models, especially scientific models that are fundamental theories to an entire field of science (in evolution's case, biology).

 

You not seeing that makes me think that you may not know enough about evolution to comment on its validity. However, that can easily be remedied and I have faith that you will understand upon careful study.

[Skye]

I beleive the evolutionary model is correct in theory, that simpler things evolve into more complex things and that selective adaptation gives it a better foothold leading to further progression. The model seems sound, but the data is not as continuous as one would hope. Fossil evidence is sparse considering we have less than .001% (estimate) of the actual animals from anytime in distant history.

There may not be a huge amount of data, but then evolution is a theory, so it there to explain the data rather than generate it. In any case, any other theory that wishes to explain that data is relying on the same quantity of data to do so, and so is in the exact same position.

[the tree]

nothing, a vacum

primordial fireball

when it comes to orgins there are basically two views

the world was led to belive that evolution brought about all things: our universe...

observable evidence

evolutionists say it all began with the big bang

explosions cause chaos and random distribution

evolutionary thinking is applied to most areas of science

the idea that cosmos evolved violates the second law of thermodynamics

an increase in order requires an outside energy source.... there is no outside energy source

and that isn't even half way through.

[herme3]

I see what you're saying here and I can relate. But the fact is' date=' science does not care whether or not God exists. Evolution does not have any sort of answer whether or not there was a creator to the universe, and it doesn't even care about the origin of the universe. The Big Bang Theory doesn't even comment on whether or not there was a creator to the universe. They are both models of how everything appears to have happened based on the data we have.

 

Science does not exist to validate religion, science exists to understand the nature. Its limits are nature, and it is composed of models that we have built through our experiments and oberservations.

 

If you're using science to validate your religion you are using it inappropriately. An analogy would be using a fork to carry a gallon of water. It just doesn't work.

 

Science and religion have absolutely nothing to do with one another. They are incompatable and should be held seperate. One is based in experimentation, the other is based in faith. One is the study of the natural world, the other is belief in supernatural beings. They have nothing to do with each other.[/quote']

 

I believe that a religion can be studied scientifically. The problem is that many scientists are not willing to accept that the existence of God is possible. They think that although the majority of American citizens are Christians, all of them must be wrong. Most scientists have not taken the time to actually read the text of The Bible with an open mind. Although it might be impossible for scientists to directly prove the existence of God scientifically, The Bible talks a lot about the natural world. Scientists can use their knowledge of the natural world to compare it with what The Bible says. However, this will be very difficult. The original Bible was not written in English, so it has been translated multiple times. In order to study anything in The Bible, scientists will need to make sure that it existed in the original Bible. If it is only an error in translation, I don't believe that it could be used to prove anything supporting or opposing Christian beliefs.

 

 

It also should be noted that the Theory of Evolution did not begin or end with Charles Darwin. Darwin simply found a mechanism to evolution. And since the time of Darwin the Theory of Evolution has been significantly confirmed and refined, just like all cherished scientific models, especially scientific models that are fundamental theories to an entire field of science (in evolution's case, biology).

 

Actually, I already knew that. However, Charles Darwin is usually thought of as the creator of some of the modern evolution beliefs. Many of the modern parts of the theory came from his book, "The Origin of Species".

 

I would also like to comment about the letter, when we talk about Chapters 15 & 16 and talk about some of the claims the video made about scientific insight in The Bible. While there are some good points made in this part of the letter, it seems to be a little off-topic. This part of the video was their interpretation of The Bible. Mentioning this in the letter seems to be going away from our original purpose of correcting misrepresentations of scientific facts and theories.

[ydoaPs]

Most scientists have not taken the time to actually read the text of The Bible with an open mind. Although it might be impossible for scientists to directly prove the existence of God scientifically, The Bible talks a lot about the natural world. Scientists can use their knowledge of the natural world to compare it with what The Bible says. However, this will be very difficult.

it's been done and the bible has been shown to say absudly stupid things about the universe. even AiG admitted that.